Read how the US Chamber of Commerce, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Cinta's and Tyson's feel about unions, Can Labor Revive the American Dream?>
This is a long read...I encourage you to read it ALL !
by: Esther Kaplan, The Nation
The financial markets are in tatters, consumer spending is anemic and > the recession continues to deepen, but corporate America is keeping its > eyes on the prize: crushing organized labor. The Center for Union Facts, a > business front group, has taken out full-page ads in newspapers linking > SEIU President Andy Stern to the Rod Blagojevich scandal. The Chamber of > Commerce is capitalizing on the debate over the Big Three bailout to claim > that "unions drove the auto companies off the cliff," while minority > leader Mitch McConnell and other Republican senators insist on steep wage > cuts. A December 10 Republican strategy memo revealed their central > obsession: "Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot > against organized labor," the memo read. "This is a precursor to card > check" - a clear reference to the Employee Free Choice Act.>> This simple amendment to federal labor law, which would, among other > things, allow workers to unionize when a majority sign cards rather than > requiring a bruising election, has galvanized the business community in a > way even the $700 billion bailout couldn't. "I get the sense that this is > more important to them than even taxes or regulation," says the AFL-CIO's > director of government affairs, Bill Samuels. "This is about power. And > the business community is not going to give up power willingly." Wal-Mart > CEO Lee Scott said as much to a meeting with analysts in October. "We like > driving the car," he told them, "and we're not going to give the steering > wheel to anybody but us.">> In the lead-up to the election, the co-founder of Home Depot, Bernie > Marcus, called Employee Free Choice "the demise of civilization." Wal-Mart > summoned store managers into mandatory meetings to warn them against it. > Industrial launderer Cintas launched a website to oppose it. The retail > industry associations paid blue-chip lobbying firms to block it. The > Chamber of Commerce hired Bush Labor Secretary Elaine Chao's chief of > staff to run its opposition campaign, which trashed the bill as > antidemocratic because it allows workers to bypass a formal election. > Business groups spent tens of millions on ads attacking Democrats in tight > Senate races, including $5 million targeting challenger Jeff Merkley of > Oregon, a supporter of the bill who was smeared with a mailer accusing him > of doing the bidding of corrupt labor leaders and trailed at every > campaign appearance by a grim reaper claiming "Merkley kills democracy." > "I've never seen anything like it," says Merkley's campaign manager, John > Isaac, "where a group spent so much money to insert their issue into a > campaign.">> At first glance, Employee Free Choice looks like little more than a > technical fix. In addition to allowing unionizing through majority > sign-up, it stiffens penalties for intimidating or firing union supporters > and imposes arbitration when a company refuses to bargain a first > contract. But as the leading corporate lobbies recognize, the bill could > have far-reaching effects. By reviving unions, it could push up wages, > realigning the broken economy so that company profits are spread beyond > CEOs. It could help rein in corporate power and, perhaps most threatening > to a business community that has enjoyed decades of deregulation, sustain > a progressive majority in Washington in the years to come. If progressives > aren't doing the math, conservatives are. "Unions don't spend money to > elect Republicans," Senator John Ensign told a group of executives this > past fall. "They spend money to elect Democrats. From our perspective, > this would have devastating consequences.">> Throughout his run for president, Obama was explicit in his support for > Employee Free Choice and his understanding of the forces arrayed against > it. "If a majority of workers want a union, they should get a union; it's > that simple," he told union members in Pennsylvania in April. "Let's stand > up to the business lobby." Since his election, he's sent other friendly > signals: supporting a factory takeover by pink-slipped glass workers in > Chicago and tapping Representative Hilda Solis as labor secretary. While > her predecessor stacked the labor department with experienced unionbusters > and gutted regulations and workplace safety inspections, Solis has been a > regular on Los Angeles picket lines and pushed a minimum-wage hike into > law as a state legislator. Significantly, she made an impassioned plea > from the House floor for the Employee Free Choice Act.>> But the business lobby Obama once railed against is now giving him a > taste of its wares. The Chamber denounced the bill in op-eds as "payback" > to "union bosses" that would signal the end of "workplace democracy" and > the advent of "Soviet-style thuggery." All the big industry associations > called press conferences to declare war. "This will be Armageddon," one > top Chamber official said of the battle ahead. Another pointedly warned > Obama against "picking a fight right away on a major, titanic clash." > Obama's advisers got the memo. At a November gathering of CEOs, Rahm > Emanuel refused to answer a question about the bill, and that same month > economic adviser Jennifer Granholm called it "divisive." Obama recently > restated his commitment to ending the "barriers and roadblocks" to > unionization but avoided any reference to the bill itself. "The Chamber is > fanning the flames on this, saying this is the epic battle between labor > and business," says a key strategist working to pass the measure, "and it > scares the shit out of the Obama people and some of the Democrats.">> For a snapshot of how current labor law works, you could do worse than > to travel to McComb, Ohio, a small town a half-hour south of Toledo, > where, one Wednesday in early December, Bill Lawhorn showed up for his job > as a forklift operator for the first time in six years. He and six other > workers were fired in 2002 after leading a campaign to unionize > Consolidated Biscuit, a massive industrial bakery in McComb that produces > popular snacks for Nabisco such as Oreos, Nutter Butters and Ritz > crackers. The workers started out with "a fire in their belly," recalls an > organizer from the bakery and confectionary workers union, with more than > 650 of 800 signing cards of interest. But after Consolidated Biscuit hired > a unionbusting firm and started threatening workers with firings or > deportations or shuttering the plant altogether, the union lost the > election. In 2004 an administrative law judge found the threats and > firings to be illegal, but the company appealed to the National Labor > Relations Board (NLRB) and then to a circuit court. It wasn't until > mid-November that Consolidated Biscuit was finally forced to bring Lawhorn > back and allow a fresh vote.>> Consolidated Biscuit is one of the few big employers in northwest Ohio, > and after eleven years earning around $12.50 an hour there, Lawhorn was > stuck hunting for work in a region where jobs are scarce. He estimates > that he applied for more than a hundred, including security guard > positions paying only $7 an hour, but he says he never got a single call. > Eventually he borrowed money from his kids to buy a truck to haul garbage > for his neighbors, which brought in a little extra cash until gas prices > got too high. He and his wife skated along on her wages from a retail > distribution center, but then she developed heart trouble and ended up out > of work herself. "Times really, really got hard," he says. "I'm 52 years > old. At 52, you shouldn't borrow from your children; you should loan to > them. You shouldn't wonder how do you buy your grandchildren a Christmas > present." Though Lawhorn received a paycheck in time for Christmas last > year, Consolidated Biscuit is still contesting the order to give him back > pay.>> At least Lawhorn got his job back; one of his fired co-workers died > before the case was resolved. Nationwide, some 86,000 workers have been > fired over the past eight years for trying to unionize (countless others > have been threatened), and only a fraction of these get reinstated by the > NLRB. So Lawhorn's return to the forklift is what passes for a victory > these days, under the shredded protections of the 1935 National Labor > Relations Act, whose intent was not merely to protect the right to > collective bargaining but to "encourag[e] the practice.">> That, says Cornell University's Kate Bronfenbrenner, is long gone. > According to her research, employers fire workers in a quarter of all > campaigns, threaten workers with plant closings or outsourcing in half and > employ mandatory one-on-one meetings where workers are threatened with job > loss in two-thirds. All of these tactics are illegal. Unions, meanwhile, > are consigned to getting out their message off the clock and off the > premises. "The fact that our labor law has no penalties for employer > violations, no punitive damages, no financial penalties, that the worst > thing that happens to employers when they commit egregious violations is a > slap on the wrist, has emboldened employers to break the law at an extreme > that is really astonishing," says Bronfenbrenner.>> The crisis is so deep that in a rising number of campaigns, unions have > abandoned board-certified elections altogether, instead using public > pressure to secure union recognition from employers when a majority of > workers sign cards. Over the past decade, the number of election petitions > has fallen by 41 percent. Take the Communications Workers of America: > within a year and a half of pressuring management at Cingular (now AT&T) > to recognize card check, CWA had organized 30,000 new members. But CWA > recently lost three elections in a row at Comcast worksites, despite > enjoying majority support - the result of antiunion threats from Comcast. > With Employee Free Choice in place, CWA could have used card check even > with this sort of intransigent employer.>> Likewise, with Employee Free Choice in effect, Consolidated Biscuit > workers would have had a union since May 2002, when a majority first > signed cards. With the threat of arbitration, a contract would have been > signed before the end of the year, likely boosting pay to $20 an hour. And > the penalty for firings may have been stiff enough - triple back pay plus > penalties - that Lawhorn and the others might never have lost their jobs.>> What would its passage unleash now? Though union membership has slid to > 12 percent in recent decades, the desire to unionize has grown - from 30 > percent of nonunion workers in the mid-1980s to 53 percent of them now. > "Look, the bill will not stop corporate unionbusting," says the AFL-CIO's > head of strategic research, Kenneth Zinn, "but it will level the playing > field for workers to join a union." If the bill passes, says Change to Win > campaign director Bob Callahan, his federation's unions - including the > Service Employees, Teamsters, and Food and Commercial Workers - are poised > to organize on a massive scale. He predicts 5 million new members in the > first eighteen months after passage - meaning, he says, 5 million workers > winning a double-digit raise, nearly a million of them lifted out of > poverty. Zinn imagines whole industries, and even the "right to work" > South, possibly opening up to unionization.>> With the concentration of wealth approaching 1929 levels, there is a > forceful case to be made that unionization holds the best chance for a > reversal. Corporate profits have doubled since 2001, while real wages have > flatlined and the number of workers earning poverty wages has risen to > nearly a quarter of the workforce. Unionized workers earn between 15 and > 28 percent more than their nonunion counterparts and receive far better > health and retirement benefits, and when unions reach a high enough > density in a particular industry, wages in nonunion shops tend to rise to > meet the new standard.>> But unionization rates have been crashing for decades. "Historically, > unionization basically created the middle class," says economist James > Galbraith. "First, by its direct effect on the wages and benefits of > unionized workers; second, by its indirect effect on the wages of workers > who weren't unionized; and third, by the impact unions had on the creation > of the social institutions that underpin the middle class, such as Social > Security, Medicare, Medicaid - the very structures of the New Deal and the > Great Society." A line tracing the rise of wealth inequality and one > tracing the decline in unionization make a perfect mirror image of each > other.>> The business community's massive campaign this past fall to defeat > candidates who supported Employee Free Choice focused on the misbegotten > claim that the legislation would take away workers' right to choose a > union by secret ballot election. Actually, labor law allows either a > secret ballot or majority sign-up, at the discretion of the employer; the > bill would simply put that choice in the hands of the workers. Still, the > Chamber, betting on its trumped-up prodemocracy message, dumped millions > of dollars on ads with this message in nine battleground states, some > using a Sopranos actor to play the union tough who just might kneecap you > if you vote no. Interestingly, the gambit failed. Voters in these states > told pollsters that secret ballot in union elections ranked last on their > list of concerns; many more said they were troubled by the excessive power > of big corporations than said they were troubled by the power of big > labor.>> Since the election, the business community has savvily retooled its > campaign. In a November 21 letter to Congress, the Chamber wrote that > passage of the bill "would have a particularly devastating impact on small > employers who, as the primary source for new jobs, would be counted on to > reverse the current economic downturn." The bill, the letter went on, "is > an awful idea in good economic times and a catastrophic idea in the > difficult economic times now upon us." Days later, the Chamber presented > new research claiming that unionization is a drag on GDP - an assertion > that Galbraith and other economists find laughable. And the Chamber used > negotiations over the auto bailout to claim that unionization bankrupted > the industry. In fact, labor makes up a tiny portion of a car's production > cost, but in a tense economic environment with spiking unemployment, such > talking points easily gained traction in the media.>> If the rhetoric doesn't work, the business lobby is ready to threaten > retaliation. "They'll promise to dump money to oppose supporters of the > bill in the next election," says Mary Beth Maxwell, director of the > pro-union American Rights at Work. The Chamber of Commerce has been > aggressively educating its local chapters so that business leaders can > buttonhole senators in their home districts. When Arkansas Senator Blanche > Lincoln, a Democrat who counts Wal-Mart among her top donors, met with the > Little Rock Chamber of Commerce in late November, she tried to talk about > healthcare and the economy, but the businessmen in the room hammered her > on Employee Free Choice. A Rove disciple, former US Attorney Tim Griffin, > publicly mulled over a run against her if she repeats her 2007 yes vote. > Weeks later, the senator hedged her bets, saying the reform is perhaps > "not necessary." "We have the most ideological business community in the > world," says economist Larry Mishel, president of the Economic Policy > Institute, "and they enforce it.">> According to the AFL-CIO's Samuels, "We're seeing heavy pressure from > the retail world, the chain drugstores, Wal-Mart, the retail federation, > the nonunion building contractors and some of the low-wage employers like > Tyson's, the ones who have spent twenty years trying to create a business > climate that isn't friendly toward unions, and from the > several-billion-dollar-industry of antiunion consultants." Wal-Mart, he > says, is at the top of that list. "They're flying their forces into DC > already." Wal-Mart sent a shot across the bow in October, when the company > shuttered an auto shop in Quebec within days of the workers there voting > to organize. "It will be very tight in the Senate," says one Democratic > Congressional aide. "We're not kidding ourselves.">> One of the many ironies here is that the Employee Free Choice Act > already has majority support - the bill just needs to get a vote on the > Senate floor. In 2007 the bill passed overwhelmingly in the House and > garnered fifty-one votes in the Senate, but when Democrats failed to > achieve a filibuster-proof majority, the business press was quick to > assert that this put "a question mark" over labor law reform. The real > question, says SEIU president Stern, is, "Are we willing to say if we > can't get sixty votes we won't fight? We will lose as progressives if we > concede that idea." Other union leaders worry privately that the bill > can't be won intact, that the increased penalties for worker intimidation > might face better odds on their own. Representative George Miller, chair > of the House Education and Labor Committee, insists that it can. "We had > the same opposition last year [2007], and the members understand the issue > pretty clearly," he says. "You're either going to give the middle class > the tools so they can hold on to their economic livelihood or you're not. > It's a very important priority for me.">> SEIU has committed 50 percent of its staff to a field campaign in > support of Employee Free Choice and national healthcare and expects each > local to commit 30 percent of its staff as well. Secretary-treasurer Anna > Burger says the union will be in fourteen states with an ambitious "field, > phone, air, town-hall-meeting press strategy. We're going to tie that to a > Hill strategy as well so they never lose sight of us, and we never lose > sight of them, until we get this done. And if they don't vote with us, > they need to be clear about what's going to happen to them. People up for > re-election should experience some of our ground operation now." Kenneth > Zinn says the AFL-CIO will be active in eighteen states, continuing the > record-breaking ground operation it put in place for the 2008 election. It > is also raising $30 million for a media campaign. Altogether, says Bob > Callahan of Change to Win, the two labor federations will have several > thousand people on the ground full time to fight for the bill. "Labor has > done an incredible job of staying focused on this as a top priority," says > Mary Beth Maxwell, "and allies have really stepped up and realized this is > more than just labor's fight.">> As UC Santa Barbara labor historian Nelson Lichtenstein points out, the > New Deal was not just a series of reforms that stabilized banking or > stimulated the economy. "Those reforms," he says, "were backstopped by the > organization of the working class, and those reforms continued for two > generations." Any Obama-era reforms, he adds, "can and will dissipate" > unless unions form an institutional bulwark against retreat.>> Fred Feinstein, a former counsel to the NLRB during the Clinton years, > was a Congressional aide in the late '70s, the last time Democrats, in > control on Capitol Hill, made a full-court press to pass labor law reform. > They failed to achieve cloture in the Senate by a single vote. Then, > unions were more than twice their current size and less allied with > progressive causes, and so it was easier to frame the battle as a > parochial fight between big labor and big business. "Labor's decline helps > recast that dynamic," he says. "This time around it isn't about two > special interests; it's about economic recovery and restoring the middle > class.">
President Obama and Vice-President Biden...at the right time !
.jpg)
